<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2002 (9) TMI 759 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108823</link>
    <description>An arbitration clause in an assignable contract continues to bind an assignee or successor in interest unless it is clearly limited to the original parties. Dissolution of a partnership firm, by itself, does not extinguish contractual rights and obligations under an agreement to sell, including the agreed mechanism for appointment of the arbitrator. The clause was construed pragmatically to preserve the efficacy of the contract, and the respondent, as successor to the firm&#039;s assets and liabilities, could act under the appointment mechanism. The challenge to the arbitration arrangement therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 10:45:52 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=145840" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2002 (9) TMI 759 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108823</link>
      <description>An arbitration clause in an assignable contract continues to bind an assignee or successor in interest unless it is clearly limited to the original parties. Dissolution of a partnership firm, by itself, does not extinguish contractual rights and obligations under an agreement to sell, including the agreed mechanism for appointment of the arbitrator. The clause was construed pragmatically to preserve the efficacy of the contract, and the respondent, as successor to the firm&#039;s assets and liabilities, could act under the appointment mechanism. The challenge to the arbitration arrangement therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 10 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=108823</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>